Darwin's Finch

I am reprinting a letter to the editor that appeared in my local paper, The Record-Courier, yesterday. Though the letter is ostensibly about the 9th Court's ruling on the Pledge, it quickly develops into the sort of anti-evolution rant we have seen here more times than any of us care to remember. (Please note: I reprint the article as it actually appeared, author's name has been omitted.)

"Atheist Michael A. Newdow has finally been able to stir up a hornets' nest and get himself a national platform. Although said to reside in Sacramento, he has drifted from place to place trying to accomplish what he has done here by shamelessly using his 7-year-old daughter as a tool to further his own agenda. Little did he know that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court is the most overturned court in the country, if they don't reverse themselves out right.

"I think maybe there are some dementia related issues in that fact, as one of the two who voted for this nonsense was appointed by Jimmy Carter and the other by Ronald Reagan, and you know you can't be a young man and get appointed to a post like that. At any rate, I have little doubt that this won't stand up.

"My beef, however, is with people like this who are clearly in the minority trying to foist off their narrow view on the entire country. Just like those herbicidal maniacs at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, I'm not content to sit around and be a member of the silent majority.

"If they want to be vegetarians, let them, just don't come around trying to force me to. If these atheists persist on being fools, so be it, but don't try to make it my law.

"The cornerstone of the atheist's faith lies in the fact they believe in evolution, that we made ourselves, everything happened by chance and therefore there is no God. Well, I'm proud to say that I can disporve that theory with a child's toy. What's that, you say? A spinning top! Take it, set it off on a good spin and watch. It spins feverishly in a blur of bright color, softly humming as it gracefully dances across the floor. Then it begins to wobble, slightly then fervently, violently pitching to the floor soon to lay lifelessly on the floor where you found it.

"So what, you say? What you have just witnessed is proof of the second law of thermodynamics, one of Sir Issac Newton's four basic laws of physics.

"The second law is known as the law in increasing entropy (or decay), stating simply that once a thing has been set in motion, it will naturally decay from order to chaos. Which runs precisely contrary to the theory of evolution that supposes the earth somehow managed to go from chaos to order in spite of everything we are able to witness.

"If that's not enough, there is the matter of the fossil record, which nowhere evidences macro evolution (a fish to a reptile to a mammal, etc.). Microevolution is all around and is evidenced by speciation of all groups, but it can never be proved that a dog has ever been anything but a dog or a man has ever been anything but a man. Darwin himself disavowed his own theory before the end of his life. Dare I go on?

"The atmosphere and the biosphere are one living, breathing entity; one can not survive without the other. How do you suppose one came into existence without the other, the chicken or the egg problem. The big bang is a bust. If a mass of material exploded, starting the universe, where did all that stuff come from?

"So many problems. Not enough helium in the atmosphere for the age of the earth. Not enough helium in a neutrino for the age of the sun. Too little salt in the ocean for the age of the earth. So many biologists saying evolution is impossible, and the list goes on. Theirs is an unreasonable faith and they are trying to make it mine. If this fool finds it objectionable to have that phrase uttered in his daughter's school, then take her out and home school her, just like millions of Christian parent do, who find the teaching of evolution and secular humanism repugnant.

"What about a trade? I'll agree that "one nation under God" be stricken from the pledge of allegiance if you'll agree to stop teaching evolution and secular humanism in public schools. How about it, Mike? No? Then get off of my neck."

Caught somewhere between rage and maniacal laughter even as I type, I can only say:
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Our paper's letters policy does not permit for a response of adequate length to rebut this moron's assertions. However, I will send them a letter, taking them to task for not following their own editorial policy, which I reprint in part:

"Keep your letter to fewer than 500 words. We prefer them typed and will edit letters for length, spelling and grammar and accuracy."

As for the author of the letter, I am considering writing to him directly. I don't really think that a reasoned response to his tripe would make any impression on him, and I really don't care to get into an extended pissing match with a local loony (hell, he might turn out to be one of those loving Christians who gets his rocks off by leaving threatening messages for all I know). But -- damn it! -- I can't stand the thought of this smug, subliterate primate thinking he got away with something. Someone should let him know how wrong he is, if for no other reason than to make him understand that he is not fooling everyone with his AIG, ICR, Hovind talking points.

I will be home alone on Friday and will have all day to work up a response. Is it worth my trouble or will I just be needlessly setting myself up for future unpleasantness?

Tigermilk

Slay the dragon, DF.

Duvenoy

Nah. Unless you can produce something accurate as well as scathing in 500 words (you WILL be edited, if not ignored - I've been there) it's not worth the trouble.

As rants go, I'll score this fundie motormouth at 4.2. I've seen much better.

doov

liquid

Well, you should simply state that anyone with a semblance of science education is aware that the 2LoT only applies in that manner to closed systems, and as the earth is receiving massive amounts of energy from the sun daily, it really is not an issue. Seeing as everything is based on the that hackneyed old chestnut, it should deal with it quickly.

You can paraphrase me if you like, and attribute the quote to an 'engineering research scientist for a defense consortium' i.e. me.

Just be really brief and rebut all his points in the manner he made them i.e...

Darwin never disavowed his theory (I believe the origin of that lie is known, but not by me...)

The biosphere was originally anaerobic and so did not require an oxygenated atmosphere.

Anyone with high-school chemistry should be able to tell you that helium evaporates from the atmosphere very quickly, and creationists seem to have forgotten that basic fact.

blah blah blah.

Reply to it. Do it with *polite* condescension. It will stick in people's minds that there is some sort of opposition to this nonsense, and that the opposition does not take creationism as a serious prospect.

Grumpy

It was Nixon, not Reagan, but that's the least of this fellow's problems.

ishalon

Write a good, concise, meaningful and not too complicated reply, not for the idiot who wrote the letter, but for the people reading who might not know better.

Autonemesis

"Finally been able to?" It sure seems to me that animosity is lying just under the surface, and isn't at all hard to stir up.

Oh, Xians never do that. At least Newdow didn't drown her in the tub to save her from the devil.

Then why get upset at all?

Unlike the majority, whose narrow view is everywhere and cannot be escaped. But I agree that this ruling is very narrow, since it applies only to Congress' lawmaking powers.

If the majority was silent, Newdow would have had no reason to file suit. The majority's non-silence is the issue central to the case.

Quote:

If these atheists persist on being fools, so be it, but don't try to make it my law.

Is is already "your law" since it is the law of the land. There is no such thing as "your law" and "my law" unless you're a white guy living in the south.

Quote:

The cornerstone of the atheist's faith lies in the fact they believe in evolution, that we made ourselves, everything happened by chance and therefore there is no God.

Of course it isn't, and I won't bother repeating the other nonsense.

The fact remains that evolution should be taught in science class simply because it is what scientists are doing. The truth of it is irrelevant to whether it should be taught as science. It IS science. Creationism is Cretinism, and in any case scientists are not studiying it, so it does not belong in a science class.

Quote:

What about a trade? I'll agree that "one nation under God" be stricken from the pledge of allegiance if you'll agree to stop teaching evolution and secular humanism in public schools.

I got a better idea: everybody honor the Constitution. Then no one has to give up anything in trade - except Congress, who should not have assumed the illegitimate power they did in 1954.

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]

[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Darwin's Finch

Another option is to submit a piece as a guest column, which would give me more room to stretch out and provide a fuller treatment of his points. Of course, there is no guarantee that such a piece would even be printed.

My problem with writing a standard letter to the editor is the word limitation. I just can't see any way to do so without leaving readers with the impression that this is really a serious debate. Unless I can drop a definitive bomb on this nonsense in 500 words, it just doesn't seem worth it.

I take it that no one thinks writing directly to the author is worthwhile?

TooBad

You might be able to stick to 500 words by not addressing his anti-science points individually. Something along the lines of "Your correspondent's remarks on evolution and thermodynamics contain a number of factual and conceptual errors. Not only are these comments wildly inaccurate, they are also entirely irrelevant to the issue, which is...." That leaves you free to devote the other 450 words to secularism and the Constitution. Not an ideal solution, I admit. Just a suggestion.

Darwin's Finch

Point taken, TooBad. However, since he actually makes no points re: the Pledge decision and since public opinion on this issue is moot anyway (supposedly independent Federal Judiciary), my main concern is his dissemination of lies and misinformation re: evolution.

In this area, there are a growing number of Christian parents who are home-schooling for precisely the reasons the letter's author stated. Frankly, I tremble at the thought of such nitwits teaching their children science. This author is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

I will try to fire a 500-word broadside at his claims. Rebutting him will be like shooting fish in a barrel. The problem, again, will be the restrictive format.